The Pelicans' situation has been unstable ever since the franchise relocated from Charlotte in 2002, and especially since Katrina. This excruciating state of limbo unfortunately defines the Pelicans. It's difficult to say where they belong.

You get the sense Ralph Sampson, if he had been designed by NASA engineers rather than a cruel god, still would have ended up as one of the great Yeah, But guys of his generation: an immensely gifted, lightly snakebitten antecedent to Vince Carter and Chris Webber.

Ruzious wrote:Pif, you say you don't discount spacing and then say it should be ignored unless/until it can be quantified, right? I'm trying to help you out, because this has become a sticking point 275 times or so.

Thanks for asking.

I don't discount spacing. Start with this: it's obvious that it is at least conceivable that spacing would have an effect. That seems undeniable to me -- & that would be enough all on its own that one could absolutely NOT discount spacing.

If it's conceivable that something could have an effect, then it should be studied to discover whether it actually has an effect, how & to what degree & on what. In a business like sports, where there's lots of money at stake in highly competitive situations, I would assume that if something should be studied (& assuming that it can be studied, which in this case I certainly assume) it is being studied.

Studied by smart people. Who conclude that it does have an effect. That's good enough for me. Way good enough! I wouldn't for a minute question that spacing has an effect, hence no way could I discount it.

What I don't know, & it's impossible for me to figure out (or you, nate, etc.) is how to quantify that effect. So, whether we're talking about Bertans or we're talking about Ben Simmons, it's hard to bring that effect of spacing into your picture of the player's value -- either as a negative factor or a positive one.

One thing you could do is look at Davis Bertans' teammates -- guys who were with SA before he arrived & are, or will be, there now that he's gone. You could look at all their performances when he was there & when he's not. You could do the same for guys who played with him on the court & when he was off the court.

But people aren't machines, so there's a lot of variation in every one of those guys' baselines -- independent of Bertans. So it's a damned complicated thing to figure out.

Especially since it's not an independent variable exactly, but rather more of a limiting factor or an enabling one (depending on whether & to what degree it's absent or present).

Make sense?

I would have preferred a yes or no. Just looking at how a player's teammates performed with him on the court vs off... that's dependent on all kinds of factors - though spacing is an important and beneficial one - regardless of whether teammates take advantage of it, so there's no reason to go through that exercise. But if I did, Rudy Gay had his most efficient season last season - and he's played like 57.5 NBA seasons. It could be that Bertans was a reason for that, but it's not something you can really quantify, so no - it probably cannot be quantified in ways you're talking about. But I think we at least agree that it exists, but other than that... I'm not sure we're getting anywhere.

"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas

doclinkin wrote:But I admit. Jones doesn’t fit the outlines of who they added. He really doesn’t look much like any other player I’ve seen. Pretty remarkable. I hope we keep him. I’m okay losing Tarik Philip for instance. Just to keep one “sic-’em” defender on the squad.

Fine. You've conceded my single most critical point. Jemerrio Jones is a must keep. Alas, to keep him we have to let 2 guys go -- Phillip & one other, who I think would have to be McRae (i.e. I keep Robinson over McRae).

HAH! You're not slick. Neat tactic. Find the small point of agreement then declare victory and stalk off holding your hands above your head in victory...

I was more making fun of myself, doc, & how pointlessly "sold" I am on Jemerrio Jones!

payitforward wrote:The original claim -- to which I was responding -- was that a high ORB% correlated with a poor record. The more you did it the worst you were (overall, statistically...). & that this chart "proved" it. Doc's still interpreting the chart that way.

More the fool, you. doc didn’t even look at the chart. Didn’t even suggest that you go back through the past dozen years and see that the correlation gets even stronger. Didn’t even refer you to articles on the Spurs and quotes by Popovich where his team gave up on offensive boards entirely. —until he landed Kawhi. Then him alone did he allow to freelance.

Nope. I ignored your PIFilibuster on the topic just to make a tangentially related point solely to set up my next point. which was more relevant to the topic of the thread. Davis Bertans shoots gud.

payitforward wrote:Just because it would be complicated doesn't mean it can't be attempted. Plus, even if you get a "fuzzy" quantification (i.e. some kind of range) it would still be helpful.

I feel sure people are working on this -- teams may have their own tools to try to quantify it. Actually, it's hard to believe they don't.

3-4 years, you'll be able to buy an app for your phone take care of the whole thing!

It is absolutely being done. It’s why the wiz were among first in the league to set up tracking cameras etc. And use that data to show what is working. Why I suggested the Wiz must be building this roster this way for some reason.

You already can pay to get less precise versions of that data though. Even the casual fan can get access to more than shot charts. Better than box score data.

Now the whole league has tracking and analytics cameras. The trick is their use and analysis. We have hired an entire department of people to figure out systems integration. And when asked what was being done differently in the draft etc compared to past regimes Tommy talked about analytics.

This is why I scoff when a sofabased box score guru insists definitively that there’s not pattern or plan. There is. But what. Look for patterns. What does the team think they see when they are sculpting a roster.

Box score is what we get after it all, but that’s like archaeology. We are looking at bone fragments and interpreting them. They are working with live dinosaurs and teaching them how to hunt.

That said, even with box score stuff of course a player’s effect on their teammates can be quantified.

Now the whole league has tracking and analytics cameras. The trick is it’s use and analysis. We have hired an entire department of people to figure out systems integration. And when asked what was being done differently in the draft etc compared to past regimes Tommy talked about analytics.

This is why I scoff when a sofabased box score guru insist definitively that there’s not pattern or plan. There is. But what. Look for patterns. What does the team think they see when they are sculpting aroster.

Box score is what we get, but that’s like archaeology. We are looking at bone fragments and interpreting them. They are working with live dinosaurs and teaching them how to hunt.

That said even with box score stuff of course a players effect can be quantified.

Lowers his teams offensive rebounding. Increases his teams defensive boards. Even if he himself does not rebound all that well.

Fair enough - I gotta do my homework. That's some impressive +/- numbers there for Bertans.

That "Hands Rating" stat looks interesting. I'm a believer that good hands is a very often over-looked quality - never realized there was a way to quantify it. It might be a major factor as to Jan Vesely failing and Thomas Bryant succeeding.

"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas

payitforward wrote:Just because it would be complicated doesn't mean it can't be attempted. Plus, even if you get a "fuzzy" quantification (i.e. some kind of range) it would still be helpful.

I feel sure people are working on this -- teams may have their own tools to try to quantify it. Actually, it's hard to believe they don't.

3-4 years, you'll be able to buy an app for your phone take care of the whole thing!

It is absolutely being done. It’s why the wiz were among first in the league to set up tracking cameras etc. And use that data to show what is working. Why I suggested the Wiz must be building this roster this way for some reason.

You already can pay to get less precise versions of that data though. Even the casual fan can get access to more than shot charts. Better than box score data.

It's really not a question of "better," I don't think -- simply the more data you have, the more information (& kinds of information) you can extract from it, & with more information you can develop more knowledge. This sequence -- data > information > knowledge -- is a standard construct in the technology industries (where I was 30 years an entrepreneur) for how benefits come out of adding tech. The next step after knowledge depends on what world you operate in -- it can be "wisdom," it can be "expertise," it can be called "intuition," etc.

Of course, over time it's a parity world -- everyone benefits at more or less the same levels. Still useful to have an edge.

That said, in re: the NBA, keep in mind that, using only box score data & nothing else, it's possible to construct a metric for player performance that correlates @94% with team results as reflected in regular season records. Over all 30 teams, & over decades. Thus, you have a pretty small available area where you can craft an edge using other technologies.

As technology was applied to automobiles, for example, cars changed completely -- in lots of ways you can observe & experience, but also in orders of magnitude other ways that you do not actually see. When you are able to do that, you can create a huge edge -- you can blow the whole thing wide open the way the Japanese (&, a generation earlier, Henry Ford) did to the global car market. You open up an enormous gap that it takes literally decades to close -- if it can be closed at all (usually, i.e. in most such industries, it can't).

Basketball is not like that. Teams with the best players will always be the best teams. In the automotive industry, otoh, everyone starts by buying the same quality steel.

Pay no attention to the remarks above. Or, per Ruzious: "PIF, ...the best part of your posts is your tagline."

doclinkin wrote:You already can pay to get less precise versions of that data though. Even the casual fan can get access to more than shot charts. Better than box score data.

It's really not a question of "better," I don't think -- simply the more data you have, the more information (& kinds of information) you can extract from it, & with more information you can develop more knowledge. This sequence -- data > information > knowledge -- is a standard construct in the technology industries (where I was 30 years an entrepreneur) for how benefits come out of adding tech. The next step after knowledge depends on what world you operate in -- it can be "wisdom," it can be "expertise," it can be called "intuition," etc.

Oh good lord. PIF is PIFFling again. Must be summer, time to be "instructed" on language by a former tech "entrepreneur". Or maybe its just "Tuesday" . Come on man, more poetry, fewer words.

We seriously need new topics. How long 'til training camps now? Or World Cup games?

Now the whole league has tracking and analytics cameras. The trick is it’s use and analysis. We have hired an entire department of people to figure out systems integration. And when asked what was being done differently in the draft etc compared to past regimes Tommy talked about analytics.

This is why I scoff when a sofabased box score guru insist definitively that there’s not pattern or plan. There is. But what. Look for patterns. What does the team think they see when they are sculpting aroster.

Box score is what we get, but that’s like archaeology. We are looking at bone fragments and interpreting them. They are working with live dinosaurs and teaching them how to hunt.

That said even with box score stuff of course a players effect can be quantified.

Lowers his teams offensive rebounding. Increases his teams defensive boards. Even if he himself does not rebound all that well.

Fair enough - I gotta do my homework. That's some impressive +/- numbers there for Bertans.

That "Hands Rating" stat looks interesting. I'm a believer that good hands is a very often over-looked quality - never realized there was a way to quantify it. It might be a major factor as to Jan Vesely failing and Thomas Bryant succeeding.

That's enormously interesting stuff. Just not quite what you may think it is. Let me start with the most obvious, most commonly-overlooked fact that's missed in looking at data like this.

This data represents Davis Bertans' effect as opposed to one or more other players. It measures a difference; it doesn't measure Bertans. When Bertans came out, someone replaced him. What we see in this data is the difference in effect of Bertans vs. that other guy (not the same one each & every time, obviously, but there's a lot of regularity to be sure).

Thus the information in this data is not about Bertans. Is that clear?

Suppose SA had had two players who put up exactly the same numbers doing exactly the same stuff -- lets call one of them Davis Bertans & the other Sivad Snatreb -- & lets assume that Snatreb was the usual sub for Bertans when he went out.

In that case, this same page of data at 82games.com would be altogether different wouldn't it? And would show that when Bertans went out & a sub came in there was neither improvement nor decline. I.e. it would show nothing positive whatsoever about him. & nothing negative either.

Whereupon we'd come up with a totally different assessment of Davis Bertans than the current page prompts us to have -- even though Davis Bertans' own performance had not changed a single iota!

In fact, this would be true no matter who subbed for Bertans; as long as it was a different pattern of substitution and/or there was any difference at all in who the sub(s) was(were), the data on the page would be different.

That's why "I scoff when a sofabased stat guru insists definitively that there’s a pattern" -- e.g. that Davis Bertans "has a significant effect in raising teammates’ eFG," even though the data doesn't say anything like that. I.e. it is not a true statement. What it shows is that even from a couch a person can jump to a conclusion.

Still, I don't scoff hard -- it's more like a friendly chuckle -- because people who've never worked with data, never worked significantly with data-based technology often imagine they see things in the stuff that other people can't see. They never had reason to develop an ingrained discipline from decades of work that makes them check first what a technology-based methodology is doing, & how well, before jumping to a conclusion based on it.

As Nassim Taleb might say, they have no skin in the game. It doesn't hurt them when they're wrong.

Often, they also like the pleasant, self-flattering sensation of knowing just how right they usually are. For which reason, another thing a sofa-based statomatic guruaholic often fails to do, that an experienced person always does, is question their own conclusions by testing them against those of others.

For example, it's axiomatic that the San Antonio FO has access to many orders of magnitude more information about Davis Bertans himself, & how he compares to other players, than our sofa-based advanced-statalogical pattern-lover. It's equally certain that they were careful to consider all that good stuff before they let Davis Bertans go for absolutely nothing whatever -- zero. zip. nada. -- in return! Or perhaps he thinks that they in the hustle bustle of a busy Summer, they simply forgot to go look at 1or2games.com where, as he knows (doesn't everybody?), definitive information of this kind can be found easily.

& there you have it. The first, most obvious problem with this assessment of Davis Bertans -- who is a nice guy by all accounts & is w/o doubt an NBA-level basketball player (we need them!). There are many other problems, but hey why ruffle feathers, right? He's a Wizard; it was a great & incredible move -- evidence that we are at the head of the pack in the NBA in player assessment; otherwise, obviously, we'd never have been able to steal for nothing a guy who ranks so well at oneoranothergame.com. Right?

Pay no attention to the remarks above. Or, per Ruzious: "PIF, ...the best part of your posts is your tagline."

payitforward wrote:That's enormously interesting stuff. Just not quite what you may think it is. Let me start with the most obvious, most commonly-overlooked fact that's missed in looking at data like this.

This data represents Davis Bertans' effect as opposed to one or more other players. It measures a difference; it doesn't measure Bertans. When Bertans came out, someone replaced him. What we see in this data is the difference in effect of Bertans vs. that other guy (not the same one each & every time, obviously, but there's a lot of regularity to be sure).

Yep. You're not saying anything we don't already know. It's a starting point. It's from this information that it's possible to extract player's effect on court in relation to other players. Back when I would lurk the APBRMetrics basketball stat forum, when Kevin Pelton and all were posting there, stat heads (Kevin Broom among them) took the regressions further by running players through changes of the five-player configuration data above to distill this data even further. Does EVERYBODY benefit when x-player is on court. Is that player on court at times with his usual replacement. Etc.

In his heaviest minutes Bertans was replacing Rudy Gay. In about 1/3 as many minutes played as the starting unit. The team scored +75 points on the season with Bertans replacing Rudy Gay with an 80% win rate. Shrug. Was Rudy Gay a worse player than Bertans last year? More interesting and to the point: San Antonio scored only 19% of their points on the interior with Bertans replacing Gay. With Gay they scored 30% of their points in the interior.

I'm saying only for those with limited access to the tracking data that is now available league-wide through the NBA main offices we can tease out the effects a little better than just looking at one column in the box score. We can test the DNA of those dinosaur bones.

On/off stats are suggestive and point to evidence that yes in fact team eFG increases when Bertans is on the floor. And they show why. The team shoots more from outside.

But, in your usual windy way all you are saying is that you believe that the Spurs have a better analysis department than Tommy and his crew. That you trust their track record better and since they have more experience with the player they know him better. Okay, sure. It still does not go towards your theory that Tommy has no plan and this team is not deliberately adding ranged forwards with any concept or blueprint in mind.

payitforward wrote:It's really not a question of "better," I don't think -- simply the more data you have, the more information (& kinds of information) you can extract from it, & with more information you can develop more knowledge. This sequence -- data > information > knowledge -- is a standard construct in the technology industries (where I was 30 years an entrepreneur) for how benefits come out of adding tech. The next step after knowledge depends on what world you operate in -- it can be "wisdom," it can be "expertise," it can be called "intuition," etc.

Oh good lord. PIF is PIFFling again. Must be summer, time to be "instructed" on language by a former tech "entrepreneur". Or maybe its just "Tuesday" . Come on man, more poetry, fewer words.

We seriously need new topics. How long 'til training camps now? Or World Cup games?

There's really no question of better Data is just a dead letter

When we discuss Hachimura We can be a tiny bit surer

Then ever we canAbout Davis Bertan

S, who may not be better than Bonga(Though being younger the kid may live longer)

Me, I've got a JonesTo keep Jemerrio Jones

In all he gets uptahHe seems a disrupter

But if I wonder when we'll know Exactly how bad is Mo

That doesn't mean WagnerIs the guy I'm most raggin' or

That I think exclusively of Admiral As a shooter elusive who adds more whirl

payitforward wrote:It's really not a question of "better," I don't think -- simply the more data you have, the more information (& kinds of information) you can extract from it, & with more information you can develop more knowledge. This sequence -- data > information > knowledge -- is a standard construct in the technology industries (where I was 30 years an entrepreneur) for how benefits come out of adding tech. The next step after knowledge depends on what world you operate in -- it can be "wisdom," it can be "expertise," it can be called "intuition," etc.

...PIF is PIFFling again.

Tonight, when day is done & the darkness has descended, when no longer can we tell an olive tree from a Christmas tree or a Benz from a Benzadrine, then will you remember these words in all their order -- from data to information to knowledge to wisdom -- as you attempt to recall what good you did with the hours I prevailed upon the goddess to grant you, despite... well we won't get into that.

In that darkness, doc, in all your doubt, when the tacos of Tuesday trace no more in your mind than the dankness of doomsday, then will your mockery of my me-ness ripen among your rankest regrets as, like whatshisname (who was turned into a whatchamacallit just because a glance he got of the goddess whatshername as she bathed in the springs of truth) you will be turned into something I'm too old to remember, for after all, I was the one who told her where they were, those springs, & believe me I told her way before they'd sprung! Tho I have to admit, I wouldn't deny it, I did avert my eyes -- I don't wanna be no whatchamacallit.

Stag! That's it; he was turned into a stag -- stag only, no party! O Acteon, you didn't deserve your fate! You were hunting -- but then your own dogs tore you to shreds. It's all in Ovid, a great read. That's what I say, doc, what I always say: the darker it is everywhere (& it's dark in America right now, a deep deep darkness in America) the more light there is in Ovid.

The gods turned on Ovid too, as you know. Augustus banished him to Tomis on the black sea (near Constantia in modern-day Romania) where he wrote the two long collections of exile poems Tristia & Epistulae ex Ponto -- both great, amazingly great.

Almost 2000 years later, the equally great Russian poet, Osip Mandelshtam, another poet of exile, wrote a poem he called "Tristia" -- after Ovid:

Tristia

I have studied the Science of departures,in night’s sorrows, when a woman’s hair falls down.The oxen chew, there’s the waiting, pure,in the last hours of vigil in the town,and I reverence night’s ritual cock-crowing,when reddened eyes lift sorrow’s load and chooseto stare at distance, and a woman’s cryingis mingled with the singing of the Muse.

Who knows, when the word ‘departure’ is spokenwhat kind of separation is at hand,or of what that cock-crow is a token,when a fire on the Acropolis lights the ground,and why at the dawning of a new life,when the ox chews lazily in its stall,the cock, the herald of the new life,flaps his wings on the city wall?

I like the monotony of spinning,the shuttle moves to and fro,the spindle hums. Look, barefoot Delia’s runningto meet you, like swansdown on the road!How threadbare the language of joy’s game,how meagre the foundation of our life!Everything was, and is repeated again:it’s the flash of recognition brings delight.

So be it: on a dish of clean earthenware,like a flattened squirrel’s pelt, a shape,forms a small, transparent figure, wherea girl’s face bends to gaze at the wax’s fate.Not for us to prophesy, Erebus, Brother of Night:Wax is for women: Bronze is for men.Our fate is only given in fight,to die by divination is given to them.

It doesn't get better. Only a translation but through the translation you see the art at its height, mind of the mind alone w/ itself & the rest.

Every thread leads everywhere; do not fear to follow. You already have & will again.

Pay no attention to the remarks above. Or, per Ruzious: "PIF, ...the best part of your posts is your tagline."

doclinkin wrote:...you believe that the Spurs have a better analysis department than Tommy and his crew. That you trust their track record better and since they have more experience with the player they know him better. Okay, sure. It still does not go towards your theory that Tommy has no plan and this team is not deliberately adding ranged forwards with any concept or blueprint in mind.

Actually, I don't "believe" that, as I would have no way to gather the information on which such a belief would have to based. At the same time, though, I do assume it's true, at least historically. OTOH, it's obvious that we are pedaling hard on all this stuff right now, & that is terrific.

I also don't think I ever said "Tommy has no plan," & for sure I don't believe that! I like him a lot & am glad he got the job.

What I certainly did say & am happy to stand by is that we don't yet know what kind of team the Wizards will be, because it's way too early to know. Nor, for that matter, is intention the only factor governing results.

We'll see. Right now it's good enough for me to feel that we are on the move. We're changing & building not patching endlessly with layer upon layer of bandaids.

Pay no attention to the remarks above. Or, per Ruzious: "PIF, ...the best part of your posts is your tagline."